That reminds me of another thing. I'm not sure about the conjecture of highly
stratified alien societies. (i.e. caste system, guild system,
etc.)
Stratified societies tend to be highly resistant to change and inhibit growth.
In economic terms, for example, having warrior, worker and religious (hmm...
sounds familiar?) castes, where members born into each caste can only work
within that caste, would severely limit the labour pool available for various
professions. Hard for capitalism, enterpreneurship, etc. to develope... This
may in turn severely limitthe rate at which new technology can be introduced
into industry and society. Anyone care to comment on this? Just some
ramblings.
> That reminds me of another thing. I'm not sure about the conjecture
Aztecs had a stratified society which included commoners, warriors,
priests--and merchants. The merchants got wealthy. This also happened
in Europe (and eventually rich merchants bought titles from broke nobles) and
in Japan; if I recall correctly, the Hindu caste system also had a place for
merchants. So I'd have to say I don't see why castes would necessarily cripple
the development of an effective economy.
As to why there are many caste-based societies in fiction, I suspect
it is because: a) most of us are living in a society with relatively great
social
mobility--just about anyone who is simply willing to work really hard
can
become wealthy--and consequently a caste-based society seems alien
despite the fact that there are more societies which have had something like
it than not; and b) it makes characterization easier. You can say "Andy and
Bob are Warriors, Charles is a Priest, and Dilbert and Egbert are Peasants",
and you've got a lot quicker picture than explaining that "Andy is a
professional mercenary whose family were all sailors, but he nearly drowned
when he was eight and decided to live on land, but you couldn't earn a living
on Xilbapa Island without being in boats a great deal, so...." and going on
and on about the other four as well. That doesn't mean the first way is better
than the second, but it is quicker and easier, so a lot of writers use it.
I agree with you. If he Kra'Vak really are like this, then I feel that
strategically they would be no match to humanity, once we got our eire up, no
matter how squared away they are tactically.
Los
> Chen-Song Qin wrote:
> That reminds me of another thing. I'm not sure about the conjecture
> On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, laserlight wrote:
> Aztecs had a stratified society which included commoners, warriors,
and
> in Japan; if I recall correctly, the Hindu caste system also had a
Also none of these developed a highly technological civilization, or started
industrializatin, except for Europe, where capitalism replaced merchantilism.
As for the Hindu system, even now many Indian scholars are realizing how much
damage it (especially the Brahmin caste) had done to the intellectual history
of the subcontinent.
> > Aztecs had a stratified society which included commoners,
and
> > in Japan; if I recall correctly, the Hindu caste system also had a
But it *did* develop in Europe. And there's no visible reason it couldn't have
done elsewhere, it's just that the Europeans didn't let other cultures develop
in isolation. (I'm not saying a caste system is the most efficient way to get
there, either, I'm just saying it's not beyond the bounds of plausibility).